I totally disagree. Not shaking hands with someone because they do
not realize their game is completely lost quickly enough to suit you
is being a bad sport. Chessplayers exhibiting this lack of class
sickens me as well as it does the original poster.

That said I'm not sure that GM Rhode did this and even if he did
nobody is perfect. But if this is his attitude I agree that to that
extent he is a jerk.

No, but I also don't consider it a character flaw on the opponent's
part if he is not cordial after such a game.

-ed g.
I personally think it is a bad idea to have games won and lost on time
due to silly sudden death time controls. However, however much I may
disagree with this those are the rules. If you play someone and they
give it their best shot to win within the rules you should be a good
sport. Refusing to shake someones offered hand after a game that was
played within the rules is evidence of a character flaw.

"Joshua B. Lilly" wrote ...
I usually say this too, about losing on time from a winning or better
position. HOWEVER, you have to also think that perhaps the reason the
other
person HAS a losing/lost position is because they were playing more
quickly
than you to manage their time better. So is it fair that you should
effectively get more time than they? If you want to burn your time to
reach
a better position than your opponent, you can, but you also might not make
time control, or will have to blitz out your last moves and blow it.

Still, I have resigned to an opponent who had a winning position when I
could have gotten him to lose on time.

- Joshua B. Lilly

Joshua,

One of my fonder tournament memories is a game in which I moved heaven and
earth to try to get something going in the position, and as typically
happens when one tries to force things, I got a totally lost position with
material down.

My opponent, who had burned a lot of time figuring out a defense to my
attack, slowly overwhelmed my position, but I watched his clock and put up
maximum resistance, even though it was obvious "resistance was futile."

Finally, as he was literally reaching for his queen to play the move that
would mate me, his flag fell and I cried out "YOU'RE DOWN!"

There were plenty of witnesses and there was nothing to be done; he yelled
at me for a while, but I quietly left the table to mark up the point on the
wall.

You could argue I should have resigned to spare him his fate. However, I am
a practical player. I was the one who tried to make something happen in the
game; my attempt backfired on the board, but my reward was his consumption
of time. I feel it was a fair result under the rules. In his place I would
also have been upset, but I would not have thought the result *unfair*--just
unfortunate.

I agree with what you and Matt have said. If you take more of your
clock you should play better moves and therefore have a better
position. If I lose on time I do not complain even if I have the
better postion because those are the rules. I am admittable in the
minority in that I don't like sudden death time controls or time
controls with too few extra seconds per move.

I personally prefer having a set amount of time plus at least 10
seconds per move. That way we wouldn't be in the situation we were in
in the 19th century where people try to "out sit" eachother but
nevertheless there is still a chance that the game can be played out
over 100 plus moves if warranted and it won't just be a matter of whos
hand is quicker.

"Joshua B. Lilly" wrote in message news:[email protected]
I usually say this too, about losing on time from a winning or better
position. HOWEVER, you have to also think that perhaps the reason the other
person HAS a losing/lost position is because they were playing more quickly
than you to manage their time better. So is it fair that you should
effectively get more time than they? If you want to burn your time to reach
a better position than your opponent, you can, but you also might not make
time control, or will have to blitz out your last moves and blow it.

Still, I have resigned to an opponent who had a winning position when I
could have gotten him to lose on time.

- Joshua B. Lilly

"joe mccarron" wrote in message
m...
I personally think it is a bad idea to have games won and lost on time
due to silly sudden death time controls. However, however much I may
disagree with this those are the rules. If you play someone and they
give it their best shot to win within the rules you should be a good
sport. Refusing to shake someones offered hand after a game that was
played within the rules is evidence of a character flaw.

"Matt Nemmers" wrote in message
news[email protected]
"joe mccarron" wrote in message
m...
I personally think it is a bad idea to have games won and lost on time
due to silly sudden death time controls.

Time management is an important part of the game, IMHO. Otherwise you're
stuck with those 19th-century sit-outs a la Staunton-St. Amant (1834) and
Labourdonnais-McDonnell (1843).
Refusing to shake someones offered hand after a game that was
played within the rules is evidence of a character flaw.

I agree.

Regards,

Matt

Isn't it interesting how all the weakies that can't play chess are so quick
to critisize the Grandmaster!

Was anyone present or has heard about the incident with GM Rohde at the
New
York State Ch in Saratoga Springs NY in September 1996?
He was visually agitated at his expert level opponent who did not
resign at the
first sign of losing the game. Others could tell something was wrong
so a
small crowd began to hover. 6-7 moves later when the expert finally
hung a
knight he resigned.
He tipped his king and raised his hand to GM Rohde who defiantly
refused and
began to lecture him on the proper respect accorded GM's and his right
to sleep
instead of playing the additional 20 minutes it took to convince the
expert to
resign.
If we are lucky, maybe GM Rohde himself can explain his actions and set
the
record straight."

I doubt we can assess this without seeing the actual game. Perhaps
Rohde had a clearly won position at the time the poster refers to
as "first sign of losing the game" but was in danger of losing on time.
If Rohde's opponent was trying to win under these conditions, I don't
blame him for refusing to shake hands one move before mate.

(I don't know that this is what happened, but it strikes me as
possible)

I totally disagree. Not shaking hands with someone because they do
not realize their game is completely lost quickly enough to suit you
is being a bad sport.

Wrong! The "expert" was showing total disrespect and was the one being a bad
sport by not resigning a lost position.

Were you there? If so, what was the position and how long did the expert take?

It seems the Doctor needs another course in anatomy because he keeps
trying to talk out of the wrong hole.

"Dr. Robert Faurisson" wrote in message .ca...
"Matt Nemmers" wrote in message
news[email protected]
"joe mccarron" wrote in message
m...
I personally think it is a bad idea to have games won and lost on time
due to silly sudden death time controls.

Time management is an important part of the game, IMHO. Otherwise you're
stuck with those 19th-century sit-outs a la Staunton-St. Amant (1834) and
Labourdonnais-McDonnell (1843).
Refusing to shake someones offered hand after a game that was
played within the rules is evidence of a character flaw.

I agree.

Regards,

Matt

Isn't it interesting how all the weakies that can't play chess are so quick
to critisize the Grandmaster!

Ahem, yes I have no real future in chess so I can speak my mind and
feel no need to kiss ass.

For the benefit of the dense I will state the obvious: Grandmasters
are good at chess but that doesn't necessarilly mean they are good
sports.

Also the last time I heard the term "weakie" I was reading a story
that quoted a 12 year old Bobby Fischer. Perhaps it is time to grow
up?